Dear sirs, This short note about the divergent opinions of two imminent authors on the Peirce list leaves me frustrated. I tried to go through the communications to find the conversation referred to and could not. I think it is important, here, for this area to be clearly spelled out even for ignorant non-peirceans such as I. While I do not disagree with the forms of non-cognizant 'communication' discussed, none the less "non-cognizant communication" carries a tone of total contradiction in normal discourse about it. And the frequent & unusual uses of "pan" necessarily are tagged in the long run, despite fascinating discussions in detail that are logically valid, as 'mystical' and seem in the long haul in outsider discourse to actually disregard Peirce's ULTIMATE secondness, if that is correct, of "brute action", "force", the ultimate criteria of any kind of validity as in "Does it work?" I am getting Stjernfelt's book to see how his argument ties in - pro or con - with Umberto Eco's "lines of resistance" (FROM THE TREE, p. 584, "the World always presents us with something that is ALREADY GIVEN and not POSITED by us. What is ALREADY GIVEN are precisely the lines of resistance." [emphasis Eco's]) and Kant's schematism (Eco's "figuring", Stjernfelt's "diagrammatology"). I 'think' undeniable and unavoidable limits of basic, plain ontology are being equivocated here - in my ignorance - between John N. Deely and Frederik Stjernfelt where I am unable to accurately attribute in plain, normal language who straightly says Peirce's "brute action" or "force" that (Eco) "Habermas, in seeking to identify the kernel of Peirce's criticism of Kant's thing-in-itself, stresses the fact that Peirce's problem is NOT [my emphasis] saying that something (hidden behind the appearances that aspire to mirror it) has, like a mirror, a reverse side that eludes reflection, a side that we are almost certain to discover one day [GCM ?], so long as we can circumvent the figure that we SEE [my emphasis]: the fact is that reality imposes restrictions on our knowledge only in the sense that IT DOES NOT PERMIT FALSE INTERPRETATIONS [my emphasis] (Jurgen Habermas, "Peirce and Communication" in Kenneth Ketner, PEIRCE AND CONTEMPORARY THOUGHT, Fordham, 1995, p. 251)", FROM THE TREE, pp. 583-4. This unknown thing-in-itself has the same utter negativity as Plato's and Aristotle's "matter" that would seem to be necessary in the vertical scheme of logic in both ancient philosophers that, if I remember right, Frederik Stjernfelt wants to archeologize.
Truly, Gary C. Moore On Thursday, September 4, 2014 6:46 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk> wrote: Dear John, list - We have discussed these issues at several occasions, as John writes. Now, our different positions are clearly expressed again - and, what is more, unchanged. So rather than taking yet another turn in that eternal circle, John, would'nt you like to take a shot at my first chapter? Best F Den 05/09/2014 kl. 00.32 skrev "Deely, John N." <jnde...@stthom.edu> : In CP 5.488 Peirce makes a crucial distinction: “all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs”. Only the latter idea – that the universe consists exclusively of signs – is properly termed “pansemiotics”. The former idea – that the universe is perfused with signs – implies Peirce’s thesis that signs are not restricted to the living world in the sense that semiosis is (not the whole of but) at work already in the preliving development of the universe. IF that is the case, we need to distinguish between biosemiosisand physiosemiosis under the general notion of “semiosis”. > Given the history of the modifier “pan-“ in the history of > philosophy, with its predominantly negative connotations or overtones, I > think that it does a disservice to the development of semiotics to adopt (or > try to adopt) positively the term “pansemiotics”. Actually, Frederik and I > had an extensive discussion around this point in “Let us not lose sight of > the forest for the trees ...”, Cybernetics & Human Knowing 13.3–4 (2006), > 161–193, “Let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees ...”, a rsponse > to Stjernfelt’s “Let us not get too far ahead of the story ...” in > Cybernetics & Human Knowing 13.1 (2006), 86–103. > The universe is not composed exclusively of signs: that is > what the name “pansemiotics” preconsciously, as it were, conveys. The extent > to which the universe (of things & objects) is “perfused” with signs is a > different question. So, since “semiotics” is the knowledge acquired by > studying the action of signs or “semiosis”, the extent of semiotic studies is > as wide (or “extensive”) as is the process of semiosis. If semiosis is > involved already in the evolution of the lifeless universe developing in the > direction of life, then, just as biosemiotics studies semiosis as it is at > work (or play!) in the world of living things, “biosemiosis”, so there will > be a “physiosemiotic dimension” to semiotics (just as there is a “biosemiotic > dimension”) as it is at work & play in the physical universe prior to and > (later) surrounding life, “physiosemiosis”. > If there is any physiosemiosis, that is as much a part of > semiotics as biosemiosis is. It is a question of the range or extent of the > action of signs in the physical realm of things whether living or not. Per > se, the question of physiosemiosis, thus, is “the final frontier” (to borrow > an expression from StarTrek) of semiotic investigation. Per se, this “final > frontier” question has NOTHING to do with so-called, or mis-called, > “pansemiotics”. Semiosis may be a process present throughout the physical > universe, living or not; but semiosis is NOT the only process thus present > (which is what the name “pansemiosis” or “pansemiotics” implies). > The question of physiosemiosis is a question of to what extent > is the action of signs simply co-terminous with the realm of living things. > (to perhaps put it in Frederik’s framework: are there natural dicisigns > beyond the frontiers of life?) The question properly phrased cannot be, as > Frederik below suggests, properly “rephrased as pansemiotics versus > biosemiotics”. ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
